project of rearch metod & tecniques

7/31/2019 Project of Rearch Metod & Tecniques

1/53

1

Research Method And Techniques

Research Project

Title:

Impact of organizational policies and practices on

employee dissent

(The Case of AG Office, Lahore)

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Allah almighty, for enabling us to fulfill this tiring but interestingjob for the completion of our project.We wouldnt have done justice in presenting this project without mentioning the

people around us who have been immense help for us. We would like to express our

heart-felt thanks to our course instructor Miss. Seemab Ara Farooqi for her endless

support and guidance, which she rendered throughout the study, and provided us

with such thought provoking ideas, to help us with this project. It couldnt have

been simply possible to accomplish this task, without her thoughtful guidance and

expertise.

In the end, we would like to conclude by saying that all errors, omissions and short-

comings of this project lie on our responsibility and we hope that we are forgiven for

this.


2/53

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................................................. 7

PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................. 7

OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 8

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ............................................................. 9

Individual influences: .................................................................................... 12

Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the

organization. ............................................................................................... 12

Roberto (2005) claims that employees may have a preference for avoiding

conflict. Therefore, they find confrontation in a public setting uncomfortablesituation. Individuals sense of powerlessness and senses of right and wrong

are contributing factors (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). .......................................12

Following are some factors that defend individual influences: ......................12

Verbal aggressiveness & argumentativeness: ..............................................12

Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individuals verbal

aggressiveness and argumentativeness influence the manner in which an

individual will approach expressing dissent. Verbal aggressiveness involves

attacking another persons self-concept. This may include character attacks,competence attacks, ridicule, and threats. Argumentativeness, on the other


3/53

3

hand, is when an individual argues about controversial issues. Individuals will

choose their strategy for expressing dissent based on the strength of their

arguments. Kassing & Avtgis (1999) found an individual who was more

argumentative and less verbally aggressive was prone to use articulated

dissent. On the other hand, an individual who lacks argumentative skills will

resort to using a less direct and more aggressive strategy, latent dissent... .12

Work locus of control: ................................................................................. 12

Work locus of control can also be a contributing influence. An individual with

an internal locus of control orientation believes that they have control over

their destiny. They feel the only way to bring about a desired outcome is to

act. Individuals who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces

demonstrate an external locus of control (Robbins, 2005). Kassings (2001)

study demonstrated that employees with an internal locus of control used

articulated dissent whereas an employee with an external locus of control

preferred to use latent dissent..................................................................... 12

Relational influence: .................................................................................... 13

This includes the types and qualities of relationships people maintain within

their organization. Following are its types: ................................................... 13

Employee Relationships: Employees develop and maintain various

relationships within organizations. These relationships can influence the

choices employees make about expressing dissent. Employees may feel

uncomfortable voicing their dissenting opinions in the presence of others

because they feel the best way to preserve relationships is to keep quiet.

Homogenous groups also place pressure on individuals to conform. Since

many people fear being embarrassed in front of their peers, they can easily

be lulled into consensus (Roberto, 2005)...................................................... 13

Superior-Subordinate Relationship: The superior-subordinate relationship is

an important relational factor. Employees who perceive they had a higher-

quality relationship with their supervisors are more often to use articulated

dissent. They feel their supervisors respect their opinions and that they have

mutual influence and persuasion over the outcome of organizational

decisions. Conversely, employees that perceive their relationship with theirsupervisor as low quality will resort to latent dissent. They feel that there is

no room to voice their opinions (Kassing, 2000). Management, which models

the use of articulated dissent, contributes to the use of articulated dissent

among its employees (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Subordinates who witness

their supervisors successfully articulating dissent may be more likely and

more willing to adopt similar strategies. However, a supervisor must keep in

mind that expressing dissent can be very difficult and uncomfortable for

lower-level managers and employees. Therefore, supervisors should not only

take actions to encourage dissent, they must be willing to seek out

individuals willing to say no to them (Roberto, 2005)................................... 13


4/53

4

Organizational influences: ............................................................................ 13

This concerns how organizations relate to their employees. Once an

employee joins an organization, it is through assimilation that they learn the

norms of the organization. Perlow (2003) states that organizations placing

high value on being polite and avoiding confrontation can cause employeesto be uncomfortable expressing their differences. Employees make

assessments about motives and restraints when others dissent and use this

knowledge to inform their own decisions about when and how to use dissent

(Kassing, 2001). Furthermore, some corporate assumptions are accepted

without questioning. For example, employees will defer to the experts

opinion (Roberto, 2005). Organizational identification and workplace freedom

of speech has an effect on an individuals choice of expressing dissent

(Kassing, 2000). If an individual highly identifies itself with the organization

they are more likely to use the dissent strategy that mirrors the

organizations values. If the organization demonstrates its values dissent andpromotes workplace freedom of speech, the highly identified employee will

demonstrate articulate dissent. An organization that limits the opportunities

for employees to voice their opinion, demonstrates contradictory

expectations, and gives the perception that openness is not favored, will lead

to employees to select latent dissent strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). . .14

Following are some factors affecting organizational influences: .................... 14

RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................. 25

HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................. 25

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................ 25

RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................... 28

Table 1.2: Level of whistle blowing among respondents ........................... 34

Low .................................................................................................34

Range ....................................................................................... 36

Frequency ................................................................................ 36

Percentage ...................................................................................... 36

Low .................................................................................................36

Figure 2.1: Motivational level of respondents ............................. 37

Table 3.2: Effect of whistle blowing on employee motivation ........................38

Motivation .................................................................................................... 38

Whistle blowing ........................................................................................ 38


5/53

5

Figure 3.1: Relation of whistle blowing and employee motivation 39

REFERENCES ............................................................................. 43

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 47

APPENDIX ................................................................................. 48

INTRODUCTION

Organizational dissent is the expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions

about organizational practices and policies. Since dissent involves disagreement it

can lead to conflict, which if not resolved, can lead to violence and struggle. Dissent

serves as an important monitoring force within organizations. This study is about

organizational dissent because it is an important issue today. Dissent can either

be positive or can be negative. As sometimes it serves as an important

monitoring force and allows the organization to identify problem and issues

before they become damaging and sometimes it seems that employees who

express dissent are more satisfied with their organization. So we want to check

the influence of organizational dissent and its effect on the motivational level

of employees. The study in hand aims at exploring how organizational dissent

impacts motivational level of employees. So for this purpose, two variables are

selected. One of them is whistle blowing and the other one is motivational

level.

Whistle blowing is a subset of dissent. It involves the expression of dissent to

external organizations. The whistle-blowing process begins at the superior-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disagreementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflicthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disagreementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflicthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizations


6/53

6

subordinate relationship. Whistleblowers are often high-performing employees who

believe they are doing their job. They just want to bring peoples attention to a

problem that is potentially harmful. (Kassing, 2002).

Organizations need to realize that internal dissent is not itself a crisis, but rather

priceless insurance against disaster. Until the ugly headlines appear and the

consequences are unavoidable, companies too often forget that they will suffer far

more for ignoring their principled dissidents than by giving them a hearing (Bennis,

2004).

Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement and recognition, produce job

satisfaction. Motivational level of employees can increased with the free

environment of the organization.


7/53

7

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to find relationship between organizational

policies/practices and decision quality/motivation level of employees in the

paradigm of organizational dissent.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

To investigate effect of organizational dissent (whistle blowing) on motivational

level of employees

To find out the impact of organizational dissent we will conduct a co-relational

research. The use of this research is to find out the relationship between two

variables (1- whistle blowing, 2- Employee motivation); and its influence upon

each other.


8/53

8

OBJECTIVES

This study would comprehend the following important points in detail:

To find out about the perception of morally conduct in organization

To determine whether whistle blowing is discouraged by the authority

personnel

To find out the trend of communication about dissent among outside parties

To find out the trend of communication about dissent internally

To determine the level of accuracy of employees in work expectations and

who take the responsibility of their actions

To observe the environment whether there is freedom of decision making


9/53

9

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

It is with this study, we will prove that even though the word disagreement mayappear negative to some, its this disapproval among members that gives rise to

reasonable discussions and debates giving birth to new ideas and concepts. In other

words, disapproval is the spark required to ignite the flame of above average

performance. Reasonable disapproval is necessary in order to gain insight to

different angles of thoughts and develop well-formed strategies and bonding among

employees. Disapproval, as opposed to insubordination, comes from the fact that

the person has an alternate line of thinking and has the confidence that his line ofthinking can produce better results. Furthermore, disagreements provide the

employees with an opportunity to present their leadership skills. It will also show

that their quality of decision making and motivation level is considerably enhanced

by the results of our study.


10/53

10

LITERATURE REVIEW

Organizational dissent is the expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions

about organizational practices and policies (Kassing, 1998). Since dissent involvesdisagreement it can lead to conflict, which if not resolved, can lead to violence and

struggle. As a result, many organizations send the message verbally or nonverbally

that dissent is discouraged. However, recent studies have shown that dissent

serves as an important monitoring force within organizations. Dissent can be a

warning sign for employee dissatisfaction or organizational decline.

Redding (1985) found that receptiveness to dissent allows for corrective feedback to

monitor unethical and immoral behavior, impractical and ineffectual organizational

practices and policies, poor and unfavorable decision-making, and insensitivity to

employees workplace needs and desires.

Eilerman (2006) argued that the hidden costs of silencing dissent include: wasted

and lost time, reduced decision quality, emotional and relationship costs, and

decreased job motivation.

Perlow (2003) found that employee resentment could lead to a decrease in

productivity and creativity, which can result in the organization losing money, time,

and resources.

According to Kassing (1997) there are three types of Dissent:

1. Articulated

2. Latent

3. Displaced

1. Articulated dissent:

It involves expressing dissent openly and clearly in a constructive fashion to

members of an organization that can effectively influence organization adjustment.

This may include supervisors, management, and corporate officers. An individual will

use upward articulate dissent in response to functional and other-focused dissent-

triggering events. Organizations are more attractive to upward articulate dissentingwhen it is in regards to functional aspects. This type of dissent gives the perception


11/53

11

that dissenters are being constructive and is concerned with issues of principle

rather than personal-advantage. It allows the employee to signal their commitment

to cooperative goals.

2. Latent dissent:

Employees resort to expressing dissent to either their coworkers or other ineffectual

audiences within the organization. Employees employ this route when they desire to

voice their opinions but lack sufficient avenues to effectively express themselves.

Individuals may also express latent dissent in response to functional and other-

focused dissent triggering. They determine to use latent instead of articulate when

they believe that management is not receptive to employee dissent. This indicates

that individuals would use articulate dissent if they feel those channels are notavailable and accessible. Latent dissent is also used in protective dissenttriggering

events.

3. Displaced dissent:

It involves expressing dissent to external audiences, such as family and friends,

rather than media or political sources sought out by whistle-blowers. Individuals

readily used displaced dissent regardless of the focus or triggering event. External

audiences provide individuals with a low risk alternative to express dissent. The

downfall for organizations, however, is the loss of employee feedback. If an

employee expresses their dissent to outsiders, the organization will not hear about it

and will assume that less dissent exists within the organization. When an

organization fails to address potential issues, employees may then view the

organization as discouraging dissent and will resort to using either latent or

displaced dissent in the future.

Kassing (1997) states there are three factors that influence which dissent strategy an

employee will decide to use:

1. Individual

2. Relational

3. Organizational


12/53

12

Individual influences:

Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the organization.

Roberto (2005) claims that employees may have a preference for avoiding conflict.

Therefore, they find confrontation in a public setting uncomfortable

situation. Individuals sense of powerlessness and senses of right and wrong

are contributing factors (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).

Following are some factors that defend individual influences:

Verbal aggressiveness & argumentativeness:

Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individuals verbal aggressiveness

and argumentativeness influence the manner in which an individual willapproach expressing dissent. Verbal aggressiveness involves attacking another

persons self-concept. This may include character attacks, competence

attacks, ridicule, and threats. Argumentativeness, on the other hand, is when

an individual argues about controversial issues. Individuals will choose their

strategy for expressing dissent based on the strength of their arguments.

Kassing & Avtgis (1999) found an individual who was more argumentative and

less verbally aggressive was prone to use articulated dissent. On the otherhand, an individual who lacks argumentative skills will resort to using a less

direct and more aggressive strategy, latent dissent.

Work locus of control:

Work locus of control can also be a contributing influence. An individual with an

internal locus of control orientation believes that they have control over their

destiny. They feel the only way to bring about a desired outcome is to act.

Individuals who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces

demonstrate an external locus of control (Robbins, 2005). Kassings (2001)

study demonstrated that employees with an internal locus of control used

articulated dissent whereas an employee with an external locus of control

preferred to use latent dissent.


13/53

13

Relational influence:

This includes the types and qualities of relationships people maintain within their

organization. Following are its types:

Employee Relationships: Employees develop and maintain various relationships

within organizations. These relationships can influence the choices employees

make about expressing dissent. Employees may feel uncomfortable voicing

their dissenting opinions in the presence of others because they feel the best

way to preserve relationships is to keep quiet. Homogenous groups also place

pressure on individuals to conform. Since many people fear being

embarrassed in front of their peers, they can easily be lulled into consensus

(Roberto, 2005).

Superior-Subordinate Relationship: The superior-subordinate relationship is an

important relational factor. Employees who perceive they had a higher-

quality relationship with their supervisors are more often to use articulated

dissent. They feel their supervisors respect their opinions and that they have

mutual influence and persuasion over the outcome of organizational

decisions. Conversely, employees that perceive their relationship with their

supervisor as low quality will resort to latent dissent. They feel that there is

no room to voice their opinions (Kassing, 2000). Management, which models

the use of articulated dissent, contributes to the use of articulated dissent

among its employees (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Subordinates who witness their

supervisors successfully articulating dissent may be more likely and more

willing to adopt similar strategies. However, a supervisor must keep in mind

that expressing dissent can be very difficult and uncomfortable for lower-

level managers and employees. Therefore, supervisors should not only take

actions to encourage dissent, they must be willing to seek out individuals

willing to say no to them (Roberto, 2005).

Organizational influences:


14/53

14

This concerns how organizations relate to their employees. Once an employee joins

an organization, it is through assimilation that they learn the norms of the

organization. Perlow (2003) states that organizations placing high value on

being polite and avoiding confrontation can cause employees to beuncomfortable expressing their differences. Employees make assessments

about motives and restraints when others dissent and use this knowledge to

inform their own decisions about when and how to use dissent (Kassing,

2001). Furthermore, some corporate assumptions are accepted without

questioning. For example, employees will defer to the experts opinion

(Roberto, 2005). Organizational identification and workplace freedom of

speech has an effect on anindividuals choice ofexpressing dissent (Kassing,

2000). If an individual highly identifies itself with the organization they are

more likely to use the dissent strategy that mirrors the organizations values.

If the organization demonstrates its values dissent and promotes workplace

freedom of speech, the highly identified employee will demonstrate

articulate dissent. An organization that limits the opportunities for employees

to voice their opinion, demonstrates contradictory expectations, and gives

the perception that openness is not favored, will lead to employees to select

latent dissent strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).

Following are some factors affecting organizational influences:

Perceptions of organizational dissenters: The perception of supervisors and

co workers can be used to further determine an individuals choice of dissent

strategy. Employees will take notice of other dissenters and the consequences

of their actions and will use this information to refine their sense of

organizational tolerance for dissent, to determine what issues merit dissent,and to inform their future dissent strategy choices. Articulated and latent

dissenters were perceived differently. People perceived articulated dissenters

to be more satisfied, more committed, possess higher quality relationships

with their supervisors, and seen as employees who believed they have

influence within their organizations than latent dissenters. Furthermore,

articulated dissenters, compared to latent dissenters, were perceived to be

less verbally aggressive (Kassing, 2001).


15/53

15

Triggering events: Organizational dissent begins with a triggering event. This

triggering event is what propels individuals to speak out and share their

opinions about organizational practices or politics. An individual will consider

the issue of dissent and whom it concerns before deciding what dissentstrategy to use. The types of issues that cause employees to dissent vary. The

majority of employees expressed dissent due to resistance of organizational

change. Other factors include employee treatment, decision-making tactics,

inefficiency, role/responsibility, resources, ethics, performance evaluations,

and preventing harm In addition to the dissent-triggering event, the focus of

the issues can be relevant to how one expresses dissent. Individuals may focus

on improving matters within the organization that affect themselves (self-

focused), they may focus on the welfare of the organization of the whole

(other-focused) or they may focus on issues concerning their co-workers

(neutral) (Kassing, 2002).

Benefits of upward dissent:

In 2002, Kassings research found upward dissent could be beneficial to both the

organization and the individuals involved. Following are some of its benefits:

Organizational Benefits: Upward dissent serves as an important monitoring

force and allows the organization to identify problems and issues before they

become damaging.

Individual Benefits: Employees who express upward dissent seem more

satisfied, to have better work relationships, and to identify with their

organization.

Upward dissent strategies:

Not all organizations are designed to recognize and respond to employee dissent.

Furthermore, employees consider expressing upward dissent as a risky proposition.

In several studies Kassing (1997, 1998) found that employees decided to express

dissent by considering whether or not they will be perceived as constructive or

adversarial, as well as the risk of retaliation associated with dissenting. In 2002,

Kassing found that once an individual decides to strategically express dissent, they

use five different categories: direct-factual appeal, repetition, solutionpresentation, circumvention, and threatening resignation.


16/53

16

Direct-Factual Appeal: When an employee uses factual information derived

from physical evidence, knowledge of organizational policies and practices,

and personal work experience, they use the direct-factual appeal strategy.

This strategy is considered active and constructive due to the fact that theemployees seek evidence and base their assumptions on facts, evidence, and

first-hand experience. Employees avoid using verbal attacks and unsupported

data.

Repetition: Repetition involves expressing dissent about a topic/issue

repeatedly at different points in time. This strategy is often used when an

employee feels nothing is being done to correct the original articulated

problem/issue and feel that the issue warrants being repeated. The problemwith this strategy is that repetition in a short period can be seen as

destructive. Especially if the abbreviated time frame does not allow the

supervisor enough time to respond. However, if repetition is used over an

extended time period it may be considered active-constructive since it may

serve as a reminder to the supervisor.

Solution Presentation Strategy: The solution presentation strategy is

deemed as active-constructive since an employee will provide solutions, with

or without supporting evidence. This allows the supervisor to be receptive to

the expressed dissent and indicates that you have put effort into solving the

problem/issue.

Circumvention: If an employee feels their immediate supervisors are not

responsive to dissent, they may employ the circumvention strategy. This

entails the employee choosing to dissent to an audience higher in the

organizational hierarchy. If an employee uses this strategy before giving their

supervisor they opportunity to handle the situation first, this strategy can be

deemed active-destructive. However, when used to express dissent regarding

unethical practices it is considered active-constructive since the dissent is

issue driven.

Threatening Resignation: Threatening resignation can also be seen as both

active-constructive and active-deconstructive. This strategy involves the

employee threatening to resign as a form of leverage for obtaining


17/53

17

responsiveness and action from supervisors and management. When used to

express your concerns about unsafe and intolerable work conditions it is

deemed constructive. However, this strategy will appear to be deconstructive

when the managers view the threat as antagonistic and unprincipled.

Encouraging dissent in the workplace:There are some tricks that leaders

can utilize to develop their employees attitudes, knowledge, and skills that

are needed to foster constructive dissent.

Change decision-making focus: Leaders should focus on How I should make

the decision instead of What decision should I make. In the end, if they

perform the following steps the decision the leader should make will be

obvious.

Encourage constructive conflict:

Leaders need to ensure that conflict remains constructive. That is, they must

stimulate task-oriented disagreement and debate while trying to minimize

interpersonal conflict. Eilerman (2006) claims that the way conflict is handled will

determine whether the outcome is constructive or destructive. According to Roberto

(2005) leaders can create constructive conflict by taking concrete steps before,

during, and after a critical decision process.

Following are the steps involved:

Establish ground rules:

Before the process begins, leaders can establish ground rules for how people should

interact during the deliberations, clarify the role that each individual will play in the

discussions, and build mutual respect. Asking individuals to role-play or to become

the devils advocate ahead of time can help reduce effective conflict while also

stimulating constructive conflict (Roberto, 2005). Macy and Neal (1995) claim that

since the role of the devils advocate is to present convincing counterarguments and

to challenge the main position, its benefit lies in the fact that it automatically builds

conflict into the decision-making process.

Intervene when necessary:

During deliberations, leaders can intervene when debates get heated. They might

redirect peoples attention and frame the debate in a different light, re-describe


18/53

18

the ideas and data in novel ways so as to enhance understanding and spark new

branches of discussion or may revisit ideas in hopes of finding common ground

(Roberto, 2005). Deutsch and Coleman (2000) explain that reframing allows

conflicting parties to see themselves as being in a collaborative, while producing apositive atmosphere that is conductive to creativity and one that increases the

potential solutions available.

Reflect on the process:

After a decision process ends, leaders should reflect on the process and try to derive

lessons learned regarding how to manage conflict constructively. Since reflections

can lead to new insight, individuals must take time to critically assess the

experience. They also must address and repair any hurt feelings and damaged

relationships that may not have been apparent during the process itself. If these

relationships are not repaired, trust could be lost which could negatively affect the

effort of the next collaboration. Additionally, leaders should celebrate constructive

conflict management and help others to remember the success of the process

(Roberto, 2005).

Establish a supportive climate:

Bennis (2004) emphasizes that corporate leaders must promise their followers that

they will never be devalued or punished because they express dissent. All too often

in the past, organizations would marginalize or terminate any employee who voiced

an opposing view. Additionally, leaders should reward dissent and punish conflict

avoiders. Anyone who clearly withholds a dissenting view only to obstruct the

implementation later should be held responsible.

When leaders establish a climate of openness, they make constructive conflict a

habit in the organization and develop behaviours, which can be sustained over time.

Kassings (2000) research found that when leaders emphasize workplace freedom of

speech, employees openly and clearly express dissent to audiences that are

responsible for organizational adjustment. However, for leaders to ensure this

type of sustainability, they need to not only change the way they make decisions,

but they must develop a pipeline of leaders who approach decision making

differently (Roberto, 2005).


19/53

19

Kassing (2000) believes that the whistle-blowing process begins at the superior-

subordinate relationship. If a superior response to an employees effort to dissent is

negative this may cause the employee to seek other avenues of dissent. In fact,

evidence indicates that only as a last resort does the dissident finally go public withtheir tales (Bennis, 2004, Kassing, 2000).

Moore (1922) clearly explained that if you want good intelligence then you need

independence of dissent and prerogatives to guarantee employees that top

management will hear their views. Different types of organizations in various

cultures have found it desirable to establish formalized systems for expressing their

dissenting views. Private sector whistle blowers need more legal protection. Many

research areas contribute to the under-standing of why and how individuals andgroups perceive and respond to information input during the process of making

decision

Stanley (1981)also discussed dissent in broader area. Sometimes dissent does not

strike/hit at the decision, but at the reasoning employed in their support. So there

are several kinds of dissent that create doubts about whether the majority is

capable or incapable, wise or unwise and right or wrong. The habit of dissent has

grown and is growing because everyone in the world wants to give his own reason

and disagrees withothers reasons. So thats why its ratio is increasing gradually.

After having peoples opinion about dissent, the writer regrets that he did not then

and there protest against the dissent habit as not only useless but undesired.

Berry (2005)explained seven dimensions of organizational culture that influence the

employee reflection process that ultimately leads to whistle blowing behavior are

presented. These include vigilance, engagement, credibility, accountability,

empowerment, courage and options. Key considerations within each dimension are

discussed and a compliance framework is used to identify strategies for encouraging

a culture that supports employee communication, questioning, and reporting of

illegal, unethical, and illegitimate practices within organizations. According to

Berry, as organizations seek to enhance standards and controls for effective

corporate governance the important role of whistle blowing has become increasingly

evident. Whistle blowing is an avenue for maintaining integrity by speaking ones

truth about what is right and what is wrong. It is a strategy for asserting rights,


20/53

20

protecting interests, influencing justice, and righting wrongs. Whistle blowing is the

voice of conscience. Organizational cultures seven dimensions are quite important

as it tells employees weather to report or not and it will have greater impact on

organizations overall performance.

Lianthi Ravishankar (2002) in his famous article for university of Oxford magazine

Encouraging internal whistle blowing in organization also explained whistle blowing.

He termed it as employees who bring wrongdoing at their own organizations to the

attention of superiors. He argued that whistle blowers encounter hostility and

alienation from people and in industry faced retaliation from their employers in the

form of dismissal or other personal hardships. And are generally defined as snitch or

a lowlife who betrays a sacred trust largely for personal gain.

There are several ways whereby problems can be solved timely thus encouraging

whistle blowing according to writer:

1. Full support and confidence should be provided to employee so that they can

bring problems quickly and immediately to internal authorities to be solved as soon

as possible.

2. Employees should be made clear about the importance of adherence to codes of

conduct.

De Dreu, De Vries, Franssen, Altink (2000) have done an in-depth study regarding the

concept of Whistle blowing. Based on their research study they have made some

hypothesis then tried to prove it. Lastly they also have highlighted the limitations in

the article, so a bit of a summary of every part is given below:

Minority dissent may consume time and deteriorate interpersonal relations but italso increases organizational effectiveness, the quality of group decision making,

and individual problem solving capacity. They have related the organizational

dissent to innovation.

Minority dissent may be broadly defined as:

Publicly advocating and pursuing beliefs, attitudes, ideas, procedures, and policies

that go against and challenge the position or perspective assumed by the majorityof the groups or organizations members


21/53

21

According to Santee and Maslach (1982), personality characteristics proved to be a

powerful determinant. Result has shown that extraversion is the key to whether or

not individuals in organizations stand up and voice their dissenting positions. When

forming teams in organizations, organizational leaders may take into account theproportion of extraverted group members. Too few and too many extraverts in a

group are not good. So a positive relation is found that number of team members

high in extraversion may lead towards more dissent and innovation. Results for work

pressures were in the predicted direction and revealed that a higher workload

positively associates with willingness to dissent. Perhaps increased levels of work

provide the stress level that is needed to think about the tasks in a constructive way

and hence to foster willingness to dissent in a work team.

Intergroup competition was not significantly related to willingness to dissent. They

say that may be intergroup competition is not a salient factor in their setting in

which their respondents were engaged. They say that they have measured this on

one base so the reliability is doubtful. They have also found out that past neglect of

minority dissent reduced willingness to dissent. The reason they have given is based

on the result of another researcher (Grahams 1986) that an organizational culture

that disrespects individual conscience and that fails to foster interpersonal trust may

reduce the occurrence of dissent. Their result also supports the hypothesis number 5

and 6 with the extraverted people. They advised the leaders to set the goal in the

early phases of teamwork, but in later phases they should focus on communicating

about how to achieve the goal. So that positive dissent and space for innovative

ideas remain there.

Now as we are focusing more on dissent and its impact on individuals, we tried to

summarize its impact as whole also. Now we wanted to study organizational dissent

as ethical dissent and its impact on organizations overall culture or vice versa.

Ethical dissent, which was quiet important for summarizing dissent, impacts on

whole organization not on one individual. So Stephens study was important in this

regard.

Thickett (2005) argued ethical dissent that the process of ethical dissent is not

merely a single action but is a series of events taking up a significant amount of theemployees time. Starting with an employee noticing something going wrong in the


22/53

22

organization this issue can be resolved very quickly or may go on, involving lawyers,

agencies etc. After this it is in the employees hands what he wishes to do keeping in

mind that his career is at stake. It is not necessary that an individual goes public to

voice himself; it can be resolved within the organization by suggesting that aparticular policy be changed. Ethical dissent becomes whistle blowing when you

make your dissent public by going outside the organization and contacting others to

convince them to help you change the policies of your organization. Ethical dissent

like establishing a technical background, meaning that you can only make your point

if you have done your homework, if not then you should be fully aware of the

procedures and the exceptions in detail only then are u in the position to speak.

Secondly, you should keep your arguments on a high professional plane, as

impersonal and objective as possible, avoiding extraneous issues and emotional

outbursts keeping your argument as productive as possible. Try to catch problems

early, and keep the argument at the lowest managerial level possible because once

the problem gets big bigger is the solution. Finding out the problem late is

extremely crucial so its best if we work out problems at a lower managerial level.

Thirdly, one should always make sure that the issue is sufficiently important. This

basically means whistle blowing going outside your organization to resolve issues.

The costs are high as you may even lose your position in the organization so its

better in your interest to stay within the organization. Whistle blowing may

sometimes be the right decision but the cost is high. Use (and help establish)

organizational dispute resolution mechanisms; this will help you to a great extent.

Check if your organization has such mechanisms, use them if not or help establish

some. Lastly, keep records and collect paper, this should be done at the very

beginning once you realize that you may have to resolve disputes within the

organization or follow the path of whistle blowing. Records that you develop later

are not too convincing as they are vague and depend completely on your memory. It

is advisable to develop them as you move forward. Your complaint must be clearly

laid out, without any personal bias, and argued on the basis of reason and not

emotion. All recommendations are for those individuals who want to take action

within the organization against the policies they disagree with in terms of ethics.

Argyres and Mui (1999) explained that one of the most important dimensions of anorganizations culture is the degree to which internal dissent is valued by the


23/53

23

organization. Organizational culture and leadership differences suggest that these

differences can help explain differences in organizational performance, and that

changing the way dissent is valued in an organization is extremely difficult. This

develops a political-economic approach to organizational dissent aimed at betterunderstanding when internal dissent can help or harm organizational performance,

why changing an organizations dissent regime is so difficult, and how some

organizations nevertheless manage such changes successfully. They argue that

organizations face a difficult political-economic trade-off in managing internal

dissent. While liberal tolerance of dissent can improve decisions by bringing better

information and deeper insight to bear on them, it can also incur costs from

excessive politicization of decision-making processes. Inculcating or changing an

organizations approach to dissent is much difficult because it requires commitments

by top managers to observe and enforce particular rules of engagement and

policies towards informal Authority that may not be seen as credible by organization

members. If such commitments are not credible, members will refrain from

expressing the kind of dissent that can enhance organizational performance. On the

other hand, if the commitments are credible, organization members may be able to

exploit them in pursuit of their own interests. This is a second important trade-off

involved in the management of organizational dissent.

Pomsuwan (2007)argued that highly motivated employees are key to organizational

success and effectiveness. If employees fail to achieve their, day to day objectives

then organization have to suffer a lot. Long term and short term interests of

organization lies in individual and team based competencies of organizations

employees, leaders and managers.

In this research author briefly explain and interpret the results. For example he

explained first managing self-competency that any manager irrespective of his

experience pays good attention to his goals and time management to Asses his own

work and follow accordingly. Because employees at all levels of experience are high

in managing communication competency, it can be concluded that employees use all

the modes of transmitting, understanding and receiving ideas. In same way he

explained all competencies optimistically.


24/53

24

These studies explained dissent in different aspects and using different kind of

dimensions but we read more than 30 articles and we came to conclusion about one

variable which is almost discussed in all articles. Organizational dissent or whistle

blowing is our first independent variable concluded from our articles discussedabove. Now from most of the studies which we read, we have concluded that most

important variable usually affected by dissent or discouraging dissent is motivation.

If we discourage dissent then motivation will decrease or if we encourage it then it

will lead to highly motivated employees but we are still not clear about it until we

carry out research in this field ourselves. But one thing is sure highly motivated

employee's lead to organization's high performance but does encouraging whistle

blowing lead to highly motivated employees is still a question in our readers minds.


25/53

25

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Q.1: Will organizational policies and practices affect decision making quality and

motivation level of employees in a negative way?

Q.2: Will organizational policies and practices affect decision making quality and

motivation level of employees in a positive way?

HYPOTHESIS

If employees do not agree with policies/practices of organization, then their

decision making quality and motivation level will decline or vice versa.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This research is conducted on Organizational dissent and its impact on employeemotivation level. It also includes two variables Whistle Blowing and Employee


26/53

26

Motivation. Whistle Blowing is independent variable and Employee Motivation is

dependent variable.

Conceptual Definition of Variables

In our theoretical framework, the first variable is whistle blowing which is our

independent variable. It is basically a concept which is concerned with employees to

communicate their dissent or disagreement with the upper management and parties

outside organization. Our second and dependent variable is employee motivation. It

is the extent to which employees are involved in decision making policies and

practices. It also involves the level of motivation employees gain by being

appreciated for their work and job performance.

According to our hypothesis, there exists a positive relationship between the two

variables, which states that if whistle blowing is encouraged in an organization, then

the employees motivational level will also be enhanced.

Operationalization of Variables

Following are the dimensions and elements associated with the variable Whistle

Blowing:

1. Perception of morally incorrect conduct in organization. This means

disagreement in the minds of employees. It includes elements that

Disagreement with upper management, Disagreement with practices and

Disagreement with written policies.

(This dimension and elements is referring to Q.1 to Q.4 in our Questionnaire).

2. Communication of this perception to outside parties. It includes elements

that Tell about your organization dissent to your family, Share with yourinformal group of friends and Share with people of other organizations

(This dimension and elements is referring to Q.5, 6, 11, 12, 13 in our

Questionnaire).

3. Perception by authority that this communication should not have taken place.

This means the upper management discourages dissent. It includes elements that

Dissent is something negative, Communication outside is discouraged, Stop informal

communication and maintain strict hierarchy for flow of information.


27/53

27

(This dimension and elements is referring to Q.7 to Q.8 in our Questionnaire).

4. Communication within organization about disagreement. This means people

expressed their feelings with upper management, which is also known as

Grapevine. It includes elements that Tell your juniors about disagreement

and Complain to your seniors about your dissent

(This dimension and elements is referring to Q.9 to Q.10 in our

Questionnaire).

Following are the dimensions associated with the variable Employee Motivation:

1. Level of accuracy in work expectations. This means that employees should be

efficient in achieving accuracy. It includes elements achieving possible

accuracy in each task and should be efficient enough.

(This dimension and elements refer to Q.14 and Q.15 in the Questionnaire).

2. Early arrival at office. This means that employees should be punctual about

their timetables and work hours. It includes element must be punctual.

(This dimension and elements refer to Q.16 in the Questionnaire).

3. Taking responsibility.This means that employees should be able to take responsibility of their own

actions and not be dependent on anyone else. It includes element should take

responsibility of their actions


4. Taking subordinates in confidence. This means that upper management should

involve employees in all activities of the organization. It includes elementsthey should communicate about their actions to their sub-ordinates and

should informally take them in confidence.


5. Participation in training programs. This means that upper management should

motivate employees to participate in training programs. It includes single

element that they Should participate in occasional training programs



28/53

28

6. Good employees communication. This means that strong communication

between employees of different departments should be encouraged. It

includes single element that Horizontal communication should be there


7. Use freedom to make decisions and allow it to subordinates. This means that

employees should be encouraged to openly discuss their views and ideas with

upper management. It includes single element that Take decisions without

fear independently

(This dimension and element refer to Q.22 in the Questionnaire).

8. No fear of mistakes. This means that employees are not afraid of committing

mistakes in fear of being fired. In this way, they learn new things. It includes

elements that Learn from mistakes and having no fear of mistakes


9. Having someone to coach. This means that employees should have strong

coaching figures in their work place. This is to encourage and support them in

their work. It includes element that they should have someone to take advise

from


10. Do not teach but lead. This means that upper management should not only

show employees the means of achieving their targets but also lead them to it.

It includes element that they should Guide and lead them to right direction.


RESEARCH DESIGN

Purpose of the study:

The purpose of this study is to find relationship between organizational

policies/practices and decision quality/motivation level of employees in the

paradigm of organizational dissent. It is a correlational research as it intends to findout the relationship between the two variables.


29/53

29

Unit of Analysis:

The unit of analysis is at the Individual level. Because data was collected individually

from every employee related to our sample.

Time Dimension:

The time dimension used here is cross-sectional studies, as data was collected at a

single point in time.

Researcher control of variables:

This study is non-contrived based on natural environment due to extensive field

work and correlational studies.

Mode of Observation:

Due to the non-contrived technique employed here, the mode of observation used in

this study was Survey, which was conducted efficiently with the use of a

Questionnaire.

Sampling Design:

Target Population:

The population of this research is AG Office (Office of DG Accountants works)

Lahore. There are almost 40 Bureaucrats working for this particular organization.

Sampling Terminology:


30/53

30

This research was engaged in Non probability sampling under which the

technique of Purposive Sampling was employed. The sample size was 22. And

the grades of employees were between 18 and 22.

Tools for data collection:

The data collection tool that was utilized under survey technique was Self

Administered Questionnaire. In the questionnaire there are twenty six

questions, in which thirteen questions are of the Whistle blowing variable and

thirteen questions are of Employee Motivation variable. The wording of the

questions is very easy to understand for any literate respondent. Throughout

the five point Likert scale is used in the Questionnaire.

The study is correlational in nature, because it will find relationship between

the variable Whistle blowing and the variable Employee Motivation level.

Editing and Coding Strategies:

As the five point Likert scale is used for the questionnaire so each option is assigned

a particular number i.e.

Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

1 2 3 4 5

As the hypothesis suggests, there should be positive relationship between the two

variables, so the statements were placed in such a way that if someone agrees or

strongly agrees then he has been encouraged by whistle blowing from his upper

management and vice versa. And same with second variable if someone strongly

agrees or agrees then his motivational level will be enhanced and vice versa.

E.g. If the Question is:

Q.1: There is morally incorrect conduct in organization.


31/53

31

Strongly Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

And suppose respondent go for the option for Strongly Disagree, then its coding

would be:

Question number Respondent answer Code number

1 1 1

So in this way for the five options Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Uncertain, Agree and

Strongly Agree, then the code numbers are assigned 1,2,3,4,5 respectively.

If the questionnaire is not filled more than 50% then that questionnaire will be

discarded.

If the respondent does not give answer of any particular question then for coding

and analysis the answer would be considered uncertain.

The reason for using a sample of 22 was due to the fact that an approximate of

almost 75% respondents for this questionnaire was needed and if the respondents

would be less than 50% then the questionnaire would not have been used.


32/53

32

Data Processing and Analysis:

On the basis of this research, some conclusion is drawn with the help of calculations,

tables and graphs. The study was bi-variate in nature because it involves two

variables. So for this purpose, first uni-variate analysis is done.

Table 1.1: Data on Whistle Blowing

No.

X

Whistle Blowing Gender

1 39 M

2 37 M

3 31 M

4 39 M

5 65 M

6 38 F

7 42 M

8 41 M

9 41 M

10 49 M

11 42 M

12 40 F

13 41 M

14 43 M

15 33 M

16 39 M

17 29 M

18 43 M

19 32 M

20 38 M

21 45 M

22 33 M


33/53

33


34/53

34

First table for X variable was created, which is Whistle blowing. On the basis of this

table, the graph and frequency table were made, which are:

Table 1.2: Level of whistle blowing among respondents

Whistle blowing Range Frequency Percentage

Low0-15 0 0

16-30 1 4.55

31-45 19 86.36

Medium 46-60 2 9.09

61-75 0 0

76-90 0 0

Hi 91-105 0 0

106-120 0 0

121-135 0 0

Total 22 100


35/53

35

Organizational dissent

0

20

40

60

80

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

Respondents

WhistleBl

Series1

Figure 1.1: Trend of whistle blowing among respondents

So the above frequency table and graph clearly shows the trend that data mostly lies

between 31 and 45 which is approximately medium.

Now, tables and graphs for second variable, that is Employee Motivation are as

follows:

Table 2.1: Data on Employee Motivation

No.

Y

Employee Motivation Gender

1 52 M

2 54 M

3 59 M

4 52 M

5 45 M

6 52 F

7 60 M

8 48 M

9 43 M

10 52 M

11 54 M

12 50 F

13 52 M

14 52 M


36/53

36

15 52 M

16 53 M

17 52 M

18 51 M

19 56 M

20 42 M

21 48 M

22 58 M

With the help of table for second variable, the graph and frequency distribution

table were created as follows:

Table 2.2: Motivational level of respondents

Employee

motivation Range Frequency

Percentage

Low 0-15 0 0

16-30 0 0

31-45 3 13.64

Medium 46-60 19 86.36

61-75 0 0

76-90 0 0

Hi 91-105 0 0

106-120 0 0

121-135 0 0

Total 22 100


37/53

37

Organizational disse

0

20

40

60

80

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

Respondent

Employee

Motivation

Series1

Figure 2.1: Motivational level of respondents

So the graph and frequency table of second variable Employee Motivation shows that

most of the employees scored between 46 and 60 which is medium. Bi-variate

tables and graphs would be created by relating the both variables.

Table 3.1: Data on Whistle Blowing and Employee Motivation

No.

X

Whistle Blowing

Y

Employee Motivation Gender

1 39 52 M

2 37 54 M

3 31 59 M

4 39 52 M

5 65 45 M

6 38 52 F

7 42 60 M

8 41 48 M

9 41 43 M

10 49 52 M

11 42 54 M

12 40 50 F

13 41 52 M


38/53

38

14 43 52 M

15 33 52 M

16 39 53 M

17 29 52 M

18 43 51 M

19 32 56 M

20 38 42 M

21 45 48 M

22 33 58 M

Now with the help of this bi-variate table, frequency distribution table was created

which will relate both variables and also graph was drawn that showed both

variables combining for relative trend of both variables.

Table 3.2: Effect of whistle blowing on employee motivation

Employee

Motivation Whistle blowing

16-30 31-45 46-60 Total

F. % F. % F. % F. %

Low (0-45) 1 4.55 0 0 2 9.09 3 13.64

Medium (46-90) 0 0 19 86.36 0 0 19 86.36

High (91-135) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


39/53

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

whistle

blowing

emplyeemotivation

Figure 3.1: Relation of whistle blowing and employee motivation

Interpretation of Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1:

It clearly has been proved or shown in the relative frequency table and graph that

both variables approximately have correlation. Because when Whistle Blowing

remains medium or between 40 to 60 then Employee Motivation of most of the

employees also remains at medium level or between 40 and 60. But still it is

unclear, so for that purpose statistical calculations were done for the more

quantitative analysis of this research.

Statistical calculations start with value of mean because it is where most of the

employees or average employees lies on the questionnaire.

Mean:

The mean of independent variable that is Whistle blowing turned out to be 3.07,

which indicates that Whistle blowing is slightly being encouraged in the said

organization. Moreover, mean of dependent variable is 3.98, which also indicates

that motivational level of employees is enhanced.

Standard Deviation:


40/53

40

The standard deviation of independent variable Whistle blowing is 0.55 which

shows a little spread of real values from mean. The standard deviation of dependent

variable Employee Motivation is 0.352 which also shows a little deviation from

mean.

Coefficient of Correlation:

The coefficient of correlation turned out to be 0.44 which means that there is linear

positive relationship between both variables.

Regression

Equation:

The regression

equation turned out

to be:

Y = 62.7 + 0.28 X

This shows that if

independent

variable or Whistle blowing is increased by one unit then Employee Motivation will

be enhanced by 0.28 units. In the absence of dependent variable change in

independent variable will be 62.7 units.

Dummy Table:

Table 4: Dummy Table of both variables

70 30 100

EnenEn

30

100

70 100

100 200

Encourage


41/53

41

CONCLUSION

As the hypothesis suggests that if Whistle Blowing is encouraged then,

Employee Motivation will be enhanced. So the bi-variate tables and frequency

distribution tables showed that most of the employees scored medium in

both variables. Secondly graphical trends also showed that both variables lied

in somewhere near to each other in graphs. Then mean for whistle blowingwas 3.07 which is more than uncertain and mean for employee motivation

Discourag

ed

Enhanc

ed

Decreas

ed

Employee

Motivation

Whistle


42/53

42

was 3.98 which means that most of the employees feel that they are

motivationally enhanced which they have been encouraged whistle blowing.

Then value of R is very important, which is coefficient of correlation and

whose value is 0.44, which clearly shows positive relationship betweenwhistle blowing and employee motivation. In the end dummy table and

regression line concludes whole discussion by clearly showing that if whistle

blowing is encouraged then employee motivation will be enhanced. So Theory

of Organizational dissent withstand at AG office Lahore that If whistle

blowing is encouraged then employee motivation will be enhanced or vice

versa. However this research was limited to AG office and bureaucrats but it

gave us deep insight into the system of AG office and also understanding of

organizational dissent theory. We hope to research again on same topic on

wider scale.


43/53

43

REFERENCES1. Kassing (1998). Organizational dissent and motivation. Retrieved from

http:/www.wikipedia.com/organizational dissent.

2. Organizational dissent and motivation. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2008, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_dissent/

3. Moore, R., W. (1922, September). The habit of Dissent. The Virginia law

register, 8(5), 338-341.

4. Stanley, J., D. (1981, January). Dissent in Organizations. The Academy of

Management review, 6(1), 13-19.

5. Berry, B. (2004). Organizational culture: A framework and strategies for

facilitating Employee Whistle Blowing. Employee Responsibilities and rightsJournal, 16(1).

6. Ravishankar, L. (2002). Encouraging internal whistle blowing in organization.

Retrieved from JSTORE April 14, 2008.

7. Argyres, N., Mui, V. (1999). A Political-economic approach to organizational

dissent. A journal from New York Press.

8. Pomsuwan, S. (2007). Study of Individual and Managerial Effectiveness: a

Case of employee of Thai life Assurance Association.Journal of Academy ofManagement, 17(2), 190-210.

9. Blumenfield, S., B., Thickett, G. (2005). Journal of academy of management

retrieved from LUMS Library.

9. De Dreu, C., K.,W., De Vries, N., K., Franssen H., Altink., W., M., M. (2000) .

Factors influencing willingness to dissent. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 30(12), 2451-2466.

10.

Pfeiffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations and organization theory.Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.

11. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. 1988. An economic approach to influence

activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology.

12. Santee, R., & Maslach, C. (1982). To agree or not to agree: personal dissent

amid social pressure to conform. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 42, 690-700.


44/53

44

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly

Agree

1. There is morally incorrect

conduct in organization.

1 2 3 4 5

2. I disagree with our upper

management on several issues.1 2 3 4 5

3. I disagree with the written

policies of organization.

1 2 3 4 5

4. I disagree with the practices

followed inside organization.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I usually tell my juniors about

these disagreements.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I usually complain to my

seniors about my disagreements. 1 2 3 4 5

7. My organization thinks that

dissent is not something negative.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Organization usually encourage

communicating dissent outside.1 2 3 4 5

9. Informal communication or

grapevine is encouraged.

*Grapevine: People expressing

their feelings with upper

management.

1 2 3 4 5


45/53


46/53

46Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly

Agree

14. I usually achieve possible

accuracy in a given task.1 2 3 4 5

15. I am quite efficient at doing

operational tasks.

1 2 3 4 5

16. I am usually punctual in

arriving office on time.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I take responsibility of myown actions.

1 2 3 4 5

18. I communicate to my sub-

ordinates about my business

actions. 1 2 3 4 5

19. I also take them in

confidence informally.

1 2 3 4 5

20. I participate in occasional

training programs.

1 2 3 4 5

21. I also communicate

horizontally with people of other

departments. 1 2 3 4 5

22. I take decisions without fear

independently.

1 2 3 4 5

23. I have no fear of mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

24. I learn from my mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5

25. I usually take advice from

experienced people in same

field. 1 2 3 4 5


47/53

47

RECOMMENDATIONS

After working on this project, following recommendations were observed:

Organizations should give more freedom to employees to express their viewspositively or negatively through the concept known as Whistle Blowing,

which was also thoroughly studied under this research.

In order to increase employees moral, whistle blowing should be encouraged

in organizations, as the hypothesis presented in this research clearly showed

that.

More extensive research should be done in various organizations, in order to

find out about their views regarding this concept.


48/53


49/53

49

QUESTIONNAIRE:

Name (Optional): _____________________

Age: __________________

Sex:

Male Female

Marital Status:

Married Single Divorced

Department Name: _______________________

Instructions: Please rate Strongly Disagree to 1 and Strongly Agree to 5 according to the

statement.

PART 1:

Continued.


50/53

50

PART 2:

Thank You!

LIST OF RESPONDENTS


51/53

51

1. Zaheer Ahmed

DG Accounts (Works) Lahore

2. Furqan Salabat

Assist. Director (Works)

Office of DG Accounts (Works)

AG office

Phone no: 042- 9210143

3. Sameen Asghar

DG AATI, Lahore

4. Adrees Tarar

DG AUDIT (Works), Lahore

5. Mirza Kamran Baig

DDG AUDIT(Works), Lahore

6. Wasim Shahzad

Assist. Director,

Office of DG AUDIT (Works), Lahore

7. Babar Bashir

Assist.AG, AG Pb (Sub office), Lahore

8. Kashif Haroon

Assist.AG, AG Pb (Sub office), Lahore

9. Shahzad Khalid

Assist.AG, AGPR (Sub office), Lahore

10.Abdul Basit Jasra

Assist.AG, AGPR (Sub office), Lahore

11.Saadiq Saleem


52/53

52

AAG,AG(Pb) Sub office, Lahore

12.Asma Fayaz

AAG,AG(Pb) Sub office, Lahore

13.Farzeena LalAssist.CMA, CMA Lahore

14.Ibrar-Ul-Haq

Defence AUDIT Lahore

15.Federal Secretary

Planning PAKISTAN

Mr. Khawaja Sohail Safdar

Phone no: 051-9225211

16.Sheikh Muhammad Amin

Director Admin and Finance

Directorate General Publishing

Welfare Punjab

17.Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz

Deputy Director Finance, Punjab

18.Salman-Ur-Rashid

Assist. Director Finance, Punjab

Residence no: 042-5420208

19.Abdul Rauf

DG Finance, Punjab

20. Dr. Zabda

Deputy Director Planning

21.Javaid Akhtar Javaid


53/53

53

(General & Procurement)

22.Muhammad Hanif Khan Assist.

Director Planning, Punjab

23.Javaid RafiqueSection Officer Budget

24.Muhammad Shahid

Deputy Director ADMIN and General

project of rearch metod & tecniques

Documents